Category: Campaign finance

Thanks to The Seattle Times for its coverage of the Koch brothers [“Kochs plan to spend $900M on campaign,” Nation & World, ], their plan to buy our democracy and the Republican hopefuls who are quite prepared to sell it to them. And no thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court for its disastrous…

The editorial commentary of E.J. Dionne in The Seattle Times regarding political campaign financing is right on. My solution to this problem is to ignore most of what it pays for [“Money is driving partisanship,” Opinion, Oct. 12]. Posters, yard signs, handouts, mailings, advertisements, candidate speeches and most commentators on radio and TV are…

California billionaire Tom Steyer’s $1 million donation is another disconcerting example of how much money there is in our elections [“California billionaire Tom Steyer drops $1 million on WA elections,” Politics Northwest, Sept. 22]. As reporter Jim Brunner points out, while Democrats receive large donations from an out-of-state climate activist, Republicans get large…

It was encouraging to see reporter Jim Brunner’s story in The Seattle Times on Initiative 1329 [“Initiative targets big money in politics,” Local News, May 9]. We — all of us — must collect 246,372 valid signatures before the end of June in order to ensure its place on the November ballot. When I…

Guest columnist William R. Maurer ends his guest column concerning the U.S. Supreme Court’s McCutcheon ruling with the following statement, “ … for proponents of open and unrestrained political debate, the decision is something to celebrate.” [“Supreme Court McCutcheon ruling protects political speech,” Opinion, April 8] The Supreme Court’s McCutcheon decision will now allow…

Syndicated columnist Gail Collins seems to feel that because the Supreme Court has allowed larger political donations, the rich now have more leverage in political elections [“Surprise! The rich won one,” Opinion, April 6].

Hey, are any of us forced to base our votes on TV ads, billboards and bumper stickers? Do the Koch Brothers (or any other billionaires) force us to vote for the candidates they support?

Or do all citizens have the opportunity, not to mention the responsibility, to inform themselves regarding all the candidates and issues?

If the rich determine the elections, based on their donations, it is due only to the laziness of the rest of the voting public.

Richard Askren, Seattle

Democracy sold to the highest bidder

There is just something so unseemly, wrong and even slimy about the Supreme Court’s rulings on

The Supreme Court ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC directly conflicts with the First Amendment [“McCutcheon decision unravels campaign finance regulation,” Opinion, April 6]. The amendment states that no law should be made which would abridge the freedom of speech. In a large-scale society such as ours, this requires that all people be given equal…

“Ruling loosens reins on political donations” [Nation & World, April 2] should have been titled “Ruling severs reins …” The U.S. Supreme Court has done the nation a great favor: finally removing any doubt that our democracy is dead. What a huge relief. No longer do the vast majority of Americans need to cling…

Welcome to The Seattle Times' online letters to the editor, a sampling of readers' opinions. Join the conversation by commenting on these letters or send your own letter of up to 200 words letters@seattletimes.com.